mcp-android-emulator

type_text

Types text into the focused input field on an Android device or emulator, with Unicode support via URL-encoding.

Instructions

Type text into the currently focused input field. Unicode is supported via URL-encoding. Shell metacharacters (; & | ` $ ( ) < > \ quotes) are rejected.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "type_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes	Text to type

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: Unicode support via URL-encoding and rejection of shell metacharacters. However, it does not mention error handling when no input is focused or whether typing replaces existing content.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by critical constraints. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or vague phrasing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and constraints. It could add a note about error conditions or what happens if the field is not focused, but it is largely complete for typical automation use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema only describes 'text' as 'Text to type', but the description adds meaningful semantic details: Unicode must be URL-encoded, and shell metacharacters are rejected. This goes beyond the schema and clarifies how the parameter should be formatted.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Type text') and a specific target ('currently focused input field'), which clearly distinguishes it from other text-related tools like set_text or tap_text. It is unambiguous and action-oriented.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for typing into a focused input field, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or say when not to use this tool. While the context is implied, there is no guidance on choosing this over set_text or press_key.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.